I like the idea that NFL coaches can "physically impose their will" on their players. Yeah, I'm sure Belichick only truly asserted himself over his team when he dropped Bledsoe over his horsefeathering knee and snapped his back in two.

I like the idea that NFL coaches can "physically impose their will" on their players. Yeah, I'm sure Belichick only truly asserted himself over his team when he dropped Bledsoe over his [expletive] knee and snapped his back in two.

Anybody seen Todd Haley's resume? Spoiler alert. It doesn't include playing football.

I coach Ladies Field Hockey. As a man, that makes me something of an anomaly. The prevailing attitude seems to be that what could I possibly know about the sport since I never played. I suppose, on some level, that concern is somewhat legitimate. Dads at field hockey games are some of the worst fans of any sport anywhere. It's sort of a guilt by association thing. Over the years I've been able to win people over and gain some margin of respect for actually knowing how the game works and successfully teaching that to players. Look for my tell all book The Grass Ceiling whenever I get around to writing it.

The "How can you coach a sport that you didn't play?" crowd misses an important point: coaches need only be able to command the respect of their players in order to be effective. Maybe it's a little harder at first because it's something new but I don't see why a woman couldn't coach football.

0 x

snoodmonger wrote:Schwarber dong was as swaggy a dong as you're gonna see, fellas. If he'd dropped the bat cleanly, it would've jumped up and flipped itself.

They only respect men's men like Pete Carroll and Jon Gruden. Hulking, intimidating he-men like Sean Payton and Mike McCarthy. Indomitable alpha bros like Marvin Louis and Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians. I get nervous just talking about them.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

Yeah, its unfortunately pretty underwhelming.

0 x

Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

it's $10? That's nuts.

0 x

longhotsummer wrote:I realize now, any opposing viewpoint, will not be tolerated.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

it's $10? That's nuts.

yup

compared to what people pay for like netflix, it seems insane

0 x

The Cubs’ transaction list under Epstein and Hoyer reads like a work of fiction, a wish-fulfillment list composed in hindsight.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

The people behind this are monstrous alcoholics or did this on a dare or a lost bet because it's one of the most blatantly stupid business ideas I've ever seen.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

it's $10? That's nuts.

yup

compared to what people pay for like netflix, it seems insane

Was literally about to say the same thing. It's twice the price of a BP subscription and while the writers sound good, there's no way single guys covering teams can churn out that much useful information single handedly to make it worth it.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

it's $10? That's nuts.

yup

compared to what people pay for like netflix, it seems insane

one guy is covering the cubs and white sox and the other guy is covering the bulls and blackhawks.

what kind of weirdo would pay any money for that?

0 x

longhotsummer wrote:I realize now, any opposing viewpoint, will not be tolerated.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

The people behind this are monstrous alcoholics or did this on a dare or a lost bet because it's one of the most blatantly stupid business ideas I've ever seen.

well i'm pretty sure they do like to consume alcohol

0 x

The Cubs’ transaction list under Epstein and Hoyer reads like a work of fiction, a wish-fulfillment list composed in hindsight.

David wrote:^BTW, this seems to me like a terrible idea. i'd never pay $10 a month for local sports writing, and i'm a pretty avid local sports fan. there's more than enough free quality content out there.

Most of the guys at BP work a full time job and write on the side, from what it appears. My guess is someone gave these guys a bit of capital to work with(no idea why) and they'll use it as long as it lasts. A year seems about right to me.

On a side note, BP is truly a sinking ship. All those guys left for 2080, now Sharma.....That Rien Watt guy who had just started writing some decent stuff for BP Wrigleyville is now in charge of it......

0 x

Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

$10 a month is crazy. If they build strong traffic on a free site, they should be able to generate far more through advertising than they'll get in subscriber fees.

The goal should be to get investors to keep it going to a point where they can be supported by advertising to get to a point where they can sell the site to a large media company. They'll need a lot of traffic to get to the point of being purchased and you can't get traffic as a startup if you charge. I think they should reconsider their plan.

Based on their comments, they seem to be banking on people being willing to pay for analytic based coverage. I don't think that will be the case.

CP_414 wrote:$10 a month is crazy. If they build strong traffic on a free site, they should be able to generate far more through advertising than they'll get in subscriber fees.

The goal should be to get investors to keep it going to a point where they can be supported by advertising to get to a point where they can sell the site to a large media company. They'll need a lot of traffic to get to the point of being purchased and you can't get traffic as a startup if you charge. I think they should reconsider their plan.

Based on their comments, they seem to be banking on people being willing to pay for analytic based coverage. I don't think that will be the case.

not to mention what the hell does jon greenberg know about analytics

0 x

The Cubs’ transaction list under Epstein and Hoyer reads like a work of fiction, a wish-fulfillment list composed in hindsight.